EMPLOYEE VOICE BEHAVIOR AND PERCEIVED CONTROL: DOES REMOTE WORK

ENVIRONMENT MATTER?

Kelly Irene O'Brien

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green

State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE

August 2022

Committee:

Swathi Ravichandran , Committee Chair

Phillip Peek,
Graduate Faculty Representative

Michelle Brodke
 © 2022

Kelly Irene O’Brien

All Rights Reserved

 iii

ABSTRACT

Swathi Ravichandran, Committee Chair

Important outcomes of perceived control and employee voice behavior include

employee driven innovation, increased productivity, and job satisfaction; therefore, it is essential

to study if there is a difference in a remote versus in-person work environment. The 81

participants in this study were employees at a public utilities department in a local municipal

government that had worked both remotely and in-person during the peak of the covid-19

pandemic. This research also looked at the role communication modalities played for both in-

person and remote work scenarios. Although these employees indicated there was no difference

in perceived control and employee voice. This study’s data suggests that voice behavior and

perceived control are stable attitudes that are not impacted by the move from in-person to remote

work. As more employees press for remote work arrangements, these data indicate that managers

should not expect voice or perceived control to impacted (negatively or positively) when

employees work remotely. These participants indicated both Zoom staff meetings and Zoom one-

to-one meetings with their supervisor were important, however, only Zoom one-to-one meetings

with the supervisor was indicated to be satisfactory, which is not surprising during a time of

social isolation.
 iv

This dissertation is dedicated to the wise and wonderful Patrick O'Brien, who stepped up
and stepped in when I needed it most.
To my parents, who did their best to understand why I decided to pursue a doctorate, and
my sister for being the best cheerleader ever.
To Dimitri, Emellia, Sean, Griffin, Cedar, and Hawthorne for tolerating my absence
when I should have been in attendance.
To Keith and Audra, Katie and Joe, Hannah, Laney, JoJo, and Luke Patrick we will be
getting together soon.
Finally, to ABDA, you know who you are. Without your counsel and support, I am not
sure I would have made it through this test of strength and perseverance.
 v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Swathi Ravichandran, my dissertation chair, who

dragged me kicking and screaming through this process and without her I am not sure I would be

graduating on time. An extra special shout out to Dr. Michelle Brodke, committee member,

whose counsel and encouragement was invaluable during the weekend of weeping. Special

acknowledgements to Dr. Phillip Peek, thank you for accompanying me on this journey. I would

also like to acknowledge Dr. Steven Cady, whose vision for this program kept me on track and

moving forward through the coursework. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Carol Gorelick,

you are one of us and I cannot imagine going through the program without you. Finally, I would

like to acknowledge all of Cohort 1, from the very first residency we had a special bond. We are

not just pioneers or founders, we are family, a gang, and a team, individuals who genuinely care

about each other, cheer for one another, and firmly believe in no one left behind.
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER I. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 4

Evolution of Employee Voice ....................................................................................... 4

Definition, Types and Dimension of Employee Voice Behavior ................................. 5

Antecedents of Employee Voice Behavior ................................................................... 7

Management and Leadership Characteristics...................................................... 7

Employee Characteristics .................................................................................. 8

Organizational Culture ....................................................................................... 10

Outcomes of Employee Voice Behavior....................................................................... 12

The Modalities of Employee Voice .............................................................................. 13

Evolution of Employee Perceived Control ................................................................... 14

Definition, Types and Dimension of Employee Perceived Control ............................. 17

Antecedents of Employee Perceived Control ............................................................... 17

The Four Major Antecedents ............................................................................... 17

Employee Characteristics .................................................................................. 18

Leadership Characteristics ................................................................................. 18

Organizational Culture ....................................................................................... 19

Outcomes of Perceived Control .................................................................................... 19

The Link Between Employee Voice Behavior and Perceived Control......................... 20

Remote Work …........................................................................................................... 21

 vii

Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 25

Participants ............................................................................................................... 25

Instrument Development ............................................................................................... 26

Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 27

Common Method Bias .................................................................................................. 28

CHAPTER III. RESULTS ................................................................................................... 29

Respondents Demographic ........................................................................................... 29

Construct Characteristics .............................................................................................. 30

Hypotheses Analysis ..................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 33

Discussion of Results ................................................................................................... 33

Theoretical and Practical Implications.......................................................................... 35

Theoretical implications.................................................................................... 35

Practical implications ........................................................................................ 36

Limitations and Future Research .................................................................................. 38

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………. 41

APPENDIX A. INSTRUMENT .............................................................................................. 59

APPENDIX B. CONSENT LETTER ...................................................................................... 63

 viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Cronbach’s Alpha.............................. 30

2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Effect Size for the Levels of Importance of

Communication Methods While Remote/in-Office ...................................................... 31

3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Effect Size for the Levels of Satisfaction with

Communication Methods ............................................................................................... 32

 1

INTRODUCTION

Innovation is rarely a product of the C-Suite (Moss Kanter, 2019); it is through employee

interaction and voice expression that leaders receive input related to operational and

transformational change that enable innovation to occur. Employee voice exchanges also help to

build trusting relationships and foster creativity within the organization. Control as perceived by

employees is another variable that results in innovative work behaviors (Vander Elst et al.,

2014). Other benefits associated with employee perceived control include the propensity to

engage in problem solving, higher productivity levels, and the ability to cope with challenging or

stressful situations (Vander Elst et al., 2014). Employee voice behavior and perceived control are

both concepts that have not been studied in remote work environments. In fact, a pre-COVID

Charter Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) survey released in February 2019

reported 62% of employees that expressed voice did so in one-to-one, in-person meetings with a

supervisor or manager. It is not known how perceived control or expression of employee voice

might change in increasingly remote work environments.

Employee voice behavior was first defined by Hirschram (1970) as “any attempt at all to

change, rather than escape from, an objectionable state of affairs, whether through individual or

collective petition to the management directly in charge, through appeal to higher authority with

the intent of forcing a change in management, or through various types of actions or protests,

including those that are meant to mobilize public opinion” (p.30). Many formal channels such as

union grievances, emails or phone conversations may be utilized for the expression of voice

behavior, ideas, opinions, and shared concerns. However, prior research indicates informal

methods of communication, especially with direct supervisors offer the most important platform

for expressing voice (Charter Institute of Personnel and Development, 2019).

 2

Perceived control is defined as “the belief that one can determine one's own internal

states and behavior, influence one's environment, and/or bring about desired outcomes.

Perceived control's two essential dimensions are delineated: (1) whether the object of control is

located in the past or the future and (2) whether the object of control is over outcome, behavior,

or process” (Wallston et al., 1987, p.5). In the context of work, it has been predicted that high

levels of perceived control are associated with several positive outcomes including high levels

of job satisfaction, commitment, performance, and motivation (Spector, 1986). High levels of

employee control are also associated with lower levels of emotional distress, absenteeism, and

turnover (Spector, 1986). To be effective, control does not have to be exercised or real; the

perception of control is all that is required to be effective (Thompson, 1981).

As stated earlier, employee voice and employees' perceived control have not been

studied in the context of remote work environments. Enterprise Technology Research (ETR)

conducted a global survey with Chief Information Officers from across different industries.

Survey results showed that pre-pandemic, approximately 15 to 16 percent of their workforce

worked remotely. However, in March 2021, about 70 percent of the workforce was still working

from home (Miltz, 2021). “Remote work refers to organizational work that is performed outside

of the normal organizational confines of space and time” (Olson, 1983, p. 182). Prior to Covid-

19, technology was in place to allow employees to work remotely; the pandemic forced it. Health

and safety regulations, social distancing requirements, and concern for employee health forced

many employees to work remotely (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2019). A recent

FlexJobs survey found employees have continued health and safety concerns with returning to in

office/in person and 58 percent of those working from home would seek a new position if they

were not permitted to continue working remotely post pandemic (Robinson, 2021). Employers
 3

have found productivity has improved in the work-from home environment; yet, many

organizations fail to clearly communicate to employees what the post pandemic vision of work

looks like, leaving employees fearful about the future (Alexander et al. 2021).

Employee voice behavior has been the topic of research studies for over 50 years,

particularly in organizational behavior, industrial relations, and human resource management.

Definitions have been established for both voice and silence, antecedents and outcomes have

been identified, and its relevance to successful, innovative organizations has been well

documented (Van Dyne, L. &LePine, J., 1998) (LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L., 2001) (Morrison,

E., 2011) (Hsiung, H., 2012) (Burris, E., 2012) (Maynes, T., & Podsakoff, P., 2014). The study

of employee perceived control also goes back decades in the organizational psychology

literature. Measures of control have been researched to determine outcome variables including

job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance (Spector, 1986). With the

expeditious expansion of remote work opportunities, this study is one of the first to explore

employee voice behavior and perceived control in remote work environments. Specifically, this

study's research questions include:

• Does employee voice behavior differ between remote and in-person work environments?

• Does employee perceived control differ between remote and in-person work environments?

• Does perceived importance for various modalities of expressing voice differ between remote

and in-person work environments among employees?

• Does perceived satisfaction with various modalities of expressing voice differ between

remote and in-person work environments among employees?

 4

CHAPTER I. LITERATURE REVIEW

Evolution of Employee Voice

Employee voice behavior dates to the industrial revolution, a product of capitalism, and

top-down organizational structures; it started in sweatshops, coal mines, railroads, and large-

scale wage labor factories. Employee voice at that time was referred to by economists like Adam

Smith, Karl Marx, and John Stuart Mill as the voice of labor (Kaufman, 2020). As a result, union

or collective voice emerged in the latter part of the nineteenth century. As unions spread, voice,

in the form of organized strikes, became violent and employee dissatisfaction and turnover rates

became quite high (Kaufman, 2020). When industries were smaller in scope, employers came in

direct contact with employees; through personal contact, employees voiced opinions and

complaints. Employers and employees acted together in common interest. However, as industries

grew, direct contact was severed, and employees no longer had the opportunity to express their

voice (Rockefeller, 1916).

Employers began to devote specialized staff to ‘employment management’ around the turn of the

century to target personnel management and industrial relations issues. Personnel management

emphasized the employer side of the employment relationship focusing on management’s goals

and objectives, while industrial relations broadly covered all participants in the employment

relationship including managers, laborers, external partnerships, markets, legislation, and public

policy (Kaufman,2020).

Around 1910-1930, in non-unionized parts of various industries, collective voice was found in

organized teams and committees (Kaufman, 2020). Employee/management welfare committees

focused on worker benefits and amenities such as saving plans, cafeterias, and restrooms

(Kaufman, 2020). The worker’s safety committee voice found workplace inspections and
 5

removal of hazards were advantageous to all parties in the employment relationship (Kaufman,

2020). Piece-rate or profit-sharing committees were created as an opportunity for employees to

voice ideas and opinions on variable compensation programs to promote trust, transparency, and

bolster performance. These mutually benefitted both management and employees. (Kaufman,

2020).

The Hirschman (1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty framework focused on the

customer/member – corporation/organization relationship and was the first to conceptualize

voice. Essentially, it was proposed that dissatisfied customers would exit to competitors or voice

their concerns to the organization and customer loyalty would mediate exit and voice (Allen,

2020). Freeman and Medoff (1985) were among the first to apply Hirschman’s framework to the

employment relationship (Allen, 2020). They shifted consumer exit, leaving a preferred

restaurant or brand, to an employee exit, (i.e., quitting or not accepting a less desirable job).

Hirschman’s consumer voice (complaining about the product or food rather than leaving),

became employee voice, suggesting what should be changed rather than quitting (Freeman &

Medoff, 1985). The significance of this study breaks down to one, the variety of issues on which

voice is expressed, and two, the extent of influence voice can have over workplace issues (Allen,

2020).

Definition, Types, and Dimensions of Employee Voice Behavior

Maynes and Podsakoff (2014) defined employee voice behavior as being voluntary, open

communication, focused on influencing the context of the work environment, directed toward

individuals within the organization. Further, promotive voice has positive impacts; it is a

supportive and constructive voice. Supportive voice is a voluntary expression of support or

defense for work-related policies, programs, and objectives. Constructive voice expresses ideas,
 6

information, and opinions focused on effecting organizationally functional change to the work

context. Prohibitive voice is defensive and destructive in nature and manifests in opposition to

changing an organization's programs, policies, and procedures even when the proposed changes

have merit or are necessary changes. Destructive voice is expressed in hurtful, critical, or

debasing opinions of work programs, projects, and initiatives (Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014).

(Look for a discussion of LePine and Van Dyne’s Big Five (2001) in the Antecedents of

Employee Voice Behavior Section). The essential question of voice behavior however, is “do I

share or keep to myself ideas about process improvement or work-related issues that differ from

others” (Morrison, 2011, p. 374).

Chou and Barron (2016) conceptualized three dimensions of employee voice behavior;

voice change beneficiary, voice change approach, and voice change time orientation. Voice

change beneficiary is presented as a social exchange process claiming voice is motivated to

change conditions for oneself or for another (Chou & Barron, 2016). Employees expressing

opinions and ideas about their own work conditions is considered self-centered voice (Chou &

Barron, 2016). Other-centered employee voice behavior is expressed when an employee speaks

out and offers suggestions to change the work situation for others or the organization (Chou &

Barron, 2016). Other-centered behavior is different from prosocial voice because it contains a

greater level of personal risk to promote ideas on the other’s behalf (Chou & Barron, 2016). The

voice change approach is founded in the perspective of employee personality traits (Chou &

Barron, 2016). Like Van Dyne and LePine (1998) (promotive and prohibitive voice), Chou and

Barron (2016) contend an employee’s personality traits influence their approach to voicing

change. Due to the fundamental differences in individuals, employees with high levels of

intuition, broad-mindedness, and ingenuity are expected to express improvement-focused voice

 7

behavior (Chou & Barron, 2016). However, employees who are conscientious, receptive, and

systematic may be more apt to display prevention-focused voice behaviors (Chou & Barron,

2016). Finally, embedded in the voice message is the cultural perspective of voice time change

orientation (Chou & Barron, 2016). This dimension emphasizes that time occurrence, present or

future-oriented, and differences in cultural values determine the extent to which employee voice

behavior is exhibited (Chou & Barron, 2016).

Antecedents of Employee Voice Behavior

Management and Leadership Characteristics

Leadership style refers to behaviors demonstrated by leaders in management practices

that reflect the leader’s character, in the way that direction is provided, plans are implemented,

and employees are motivated (Newstrom & Davis, 1993). It impacts an employee’s mindset,

performance, and behavior (Yan, 2018). A leader’s organizational authority grants them the

power to reward and punish, assign work, and provide promotional opportunities (Yan, 2018).

Therefore, a leader’s behavior and frame of mind provide the basis for whether or not an

employee speaks up to offer a suggestion or criticism (Yan, 2018).

Prior research has explored leadership styles as an antecedent of voice behavior (Yang et

al., 2021). Authentic leadership promotes positive feelings, which in turn leads to leader-member

exchanges, providing a climate for procedural justice that encourages employee voice (Hsiung,

2012). Ethical leadership creates a climate for individuals to voice, serving as an instrument for

creativity and innovation (Chen & Hou, 2016). Transformational leadership has been found to

strengthen an employee's identification with a leader, thereby promoting voice behavior (Duan et

al., 2017). Existing research also suggests a positive relationship between being a servant leader
 8

and exhibition of employee voice behavior, by displaying gratitude and daily demonstrations of

organizational citizenship behaviors (Sun et al., 2019).

It is management's responsibility to provide a psychologically safe workplace and an

environment where employees respect and trust in interpersonal relationships thereby providing

a safer place to take interpersonal risks (Hernandez et al., 2015). A workplace that is safe

psychologically allows employees to express themselves without fear of consequences to self-

image, status, or career (Lyu, 2016). In a rapidly changing organization, it is critical for

employees to be psychologically safe to learn and grow, work, and contribute (Edmondson &

Lei, 2014). Providing psychological safety is critical for employee voice to flow to, instead of

around, management (Detert et al., 2013).

Self- efficacy, a personal trait or self-belief directing an individual response to social and

personal outcomes, also plays a role in encouraging or discouraging employee voice (He et al.,

2021). Leaders with low managerial self-efficacy have been found to be least likely to receive or

solicit employee voice because they send signals that voice is unwelcomed, owing to feelings of

their ego being personally threatened by those who speak up (Fast et al., 2014). Axtell et al.

(2000) found employees that demonstrated self-efficacy and confidence in their roles performed

tasks proactively, with increased innovation. Individuals exhibiting low self-efficacy and doubt

about their abilities were more likely to retreat from threatening and challenging ideas

(Dedahanov et al., 2019).

Employee Characteristics

Antecedents that facilitate employee voice revolve around the manager/direct report,

supervisor/subordinate relationship (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). The section above

 9

discussed the management/supervisor side of the relationship; the direct report/subordinate-

related antecedents are addressed below.

Due to the discretionary nature of employee voice, an employee's personality is an

antecedent of voice. LePine and Van Dyne (2001) identified five personality dimensions

associated with voice behaviors. Their findings showed employees that displayed personality

traits of conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness were more likely to engage in positive

voice behaviors, while employees that exhibit agreeable (although agreeableness is positively

linked with cooperative behaviors, the bidirectionality of agreeableness is often linked with voice

behavior) or neurotic traits tended to engage in negative voice.

Prosocial behavior can bring employee voice to focus on emotions like empathetic

concern, anger, or guilt as a result of another employee's suffering (Heaphy et al., 2021).

Stepping up to help co-workers, protecting the organization, making constructive suggestions,

and self-development are indicative of prosocial behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In addition,

employees who exhibit prosocial behavior that focuses on the well-being of their fellow

employees are more likely to engage in positive voice behaviors (Lebel & Patil, 2018).

Madrid (2020,) proposed employee voice is a product of “employee regulation and positive

affect” (p. 1). Emotion regulation promotes frequent and constructive voice behavior and

interpersonal citizenship behaviors (Grant, 2013). However, negative employee behaviors can

signal that it is time for a change in the status quo (Lebel, 2016). An employee's perceived ability

to sell an issue or idea to trigger action by management appears to be an antecedent of voice

behavior as well (Dutton et al., 2002).

 10

Organizational Culture

Organizational culture is the assumptions, values, and beliefs of that organization which

are communicated to new employees through myths and stories informing them how to think and

feel (Schneider, et al., 2013, Schein, 2010, Trice & Beyer 1993, Zohar & Hoffman 2012). On the

other hand, the Society of Human Resource Managers (SHRM) (2017) describes organizational

culture as a nebulous construct that is frequently not identified as an aspect of the organization.

However, when an organization has a strong culture, employees know how to respond to a given

situation. They have confidence their response is correct, and that management will support their

response (SHRM, 2017). Gorden et al. (1988) found when corporate culture supports the

commitment to producing a quality product, demonstrates a commitment to the quality of

employee's work life, and demonstrates an openness to individualism, then employees will voice

ideas and opinions. Kowtha et al. (2001) used the Boisot & Child (1988) typology of transaction-

governance structures as a framework for organizational cultures and employee voice because it

is founded in information and power distribution. Therefore, an organization's cultural behaviors

are said to drive the quality and frequency of employee voice (Kowtha et al., 2001).

Kwon et al. (2016) found employee voice is driven by individual-level motivators

(employee characteristics) and organizational/contextual norms (organizational culture).

Contextual norms informally signal appropriate and tolerated behaviors in the workplace

(Whiting et al., 2012). Informal signals indicate to employees if leadership is receptive to, and

will act upon ideas, opinions, and complaints (Kwon et al., 2016). Additionally, societal-level

norms can signal how employee voice is perceived by management (Huang et al., 2005). The

cultures of many societies believe exercising voice is disrespectful and insubordinate. So, despite

having a stated organizational open-door policy, a manager raised in another culture may be

sending signals to the contrary (Kwon et al., 2016).

 11

An employee’s ability to read and interpret organizational politics is not only an

important skill; it is also a critical antecedent of employee voice behavior (Xue et al., 2015).

Employees who excel at observing and understanding organizational culture will know when it is

the right time to express ideas and opinions to managers (Bolino et al., 2008). These savvy

employees can make positive impressions on peers and supervisors in the workplace to influence

the people that can help with future career development (Bolino et al., 2008). However, an

organizational culture based on hiding and suppressing unfair and unjust treatment of employees

due to political motives, like the expression of voice, may ultimately drive employees to show

lower levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, exert less effort, and initiative (Xue

et al., 2015).

An organizational culture that discourages employee voice can be changed if leadership

models a climate of development and focuses on transparency to encourage voice (Maxfield,

2016). Reverse engineering (disassemble it, examine it, and reassemble it) a silent culture to

focus on the risks of not speaking up and practicing softening emotions to appear accepting of

employee voice, a leader can make employees feel safe and respected, so trust will grow

(Maxfield, 2016).

A literature review did not reveal any studies related to the study of employee voice

among public sector employees in local government. Most public sector employee voice

behavior research has been conducted in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East (Gambarotto &

Cammozzo, 2010, Yan & Xiao, 2016, Potipiroon & Wongpreedee, 2021, Alang et al., 2022, Um-

e-Rubbab & Naqvi, 2020).

 12

Outcomes of Employee Voice Behaviors

LePine and Van Dyne (1998) found employee voice behavior to be associated with

improving organizational issues such as embracing change and higher levels of efficiency;

however, expressing voice can come with negative consequences for employees. Milliken et al.'s

(2003) findings support employees must carefully consider the cost of expressing voice. Milliken

et al., (2003) also stated negative outcomes of voice behavior include being labeled or viewed

negatively, retaliation or punishment, and reduced likelihood of promotion or career

opportunities. Further, employees who express voice risk damaging relationships, negatively

impacting others, and weakening social ties or total social rejection (Milliken et al., 2003).

Conversely, when voice is communicated effectively, employee behavior is viewed as

constructive thus resulting in positive feedback (Van Dyne et al., 2003).

Expression of voice by employees could also impact their performance evaluation by

managers. For example, Burris et al. (2013) found when employees expressed voice perceived to

be of higher levels of importance, from the managers' perspectives, they received positive

performance evaluation scores. However, employees who overestimated the level of importance

of voice to their managers were rated as worse performers and were more likely to be terminated,

despite employees believing they displayed higher levels of voice. Over estimators were viewed

as worse performers. Conversely, employees who underestimated their voice on the continuum

were rated better performers and were less likely to be fired, despite displaying lower voice

levels. Further, in a 2012 study, Burris found engaging supervision in challenging voice behavior

led to perceptions of negativity and disloyalty; however, if the employee was perceived as an

expert, they were buffered against the negative effects of speaking up in challenging ways. Thus,

employees must ask themselves, "What's in it for me?" before speaking up to management with
 13

so much at stake. From an organizational perspective, managers must create an environment in

which employees participate and express voice as it promotes employee-driven innovation

(Purvis et al., 2015). Employees need the carrot and not the stick (Purvis et al., 2015).

The Modalities of Employee Voice

Historically, manufacturing organizations were centralized, and employees' only option

was to obey management orders. The only way for employee voice to be heard was through

collective voice by filing a union grievance (Pugh et al., 1969). In 2019, CIPD released a report

based on a survey of 2,372 individuals as to how they expressed voice in their organizations.

They found that 62% expressed voice in one-to-one supervisory meeting, 49% in team meetings,

37% in departmental or organizational meetings; only 17% expressed voice in union meetings

(CIPD, 2019).

The internet and various social media platforms are influencing employment, enhancing,

and constraining employee voice, and blurring employee's public and private lives (Thornthwaite

et al., 2020). Social media is now seen as an emerging alternative outlet to express employee

voice (Holland et al., 2016). Armed with technology, it is incredible the amount of marketplace

power there is in the hands of employees (Miles & Mangold, 2014). Employers have access,

monitor, and control the sites employees visit during the course of the workday. However, they

do not control employee-owned personal computer or mobile devices, and with social media

sites readily available, restrictions are likely to fail (Miles & Mangold, 2014).

Counter institutional websites have become a haven for individuals to anonymously voice

concerns and frustrations with a particular organization without the fear of retaliation or

termination (Gossett & Kilker, 2006). Websites like myjobsucks.com, rateyourprof.com,

glassdoor.com, and indeed.com force employers to be aware of social media presence

 14

(Ravazzani, & Mazzei, 2018). Along those lines, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

states federal law grants the right to collaborate with coworkers, whether in person or

cyberspace, to improve conditions and work lives (NLRB, 2013). Lunchroom conversations no

longer take place in the lunchroom; they now take place as comments on a social media platform

(Rosenberger, 2013). These websites can also offer a framework for employees to help each

other resolve problems and cope with their unique situations outside of the formal organizational

setting by communicating with peers and suggesting resources to assist individuals to accomplish

goals (Gossett & Kilker, 2006).

Considering the potential number of customers, clients, fellow, and prospective

employees employee voice has the potential to reach, employers must have an effective

management plan in place (Miles & Mangold, 2014). Effective brand-related management

includes communication methods that allow management to harness employee innovation and

encourage engagement and positive brand image (Miles & Marigold, 2014).

Evolution of Employee Perceived Control

The study of perceived control began with Pavlovian fear conditioning and escape or

avoidance responses (Brown & Jacob, 1949). Specifically, fear is a learned reaction and a

reduction in fear leads to an acquisition of new responses (Brown & Jacob, 1949). Rotter (1966,

p. 25) provides strong support for “the individual who has a strong belief that he can control his

own destiny is likely to (a) be more alert to those aspects of the environment which can provide

useful information for their future behavior; (b) take steps to improve his environmental

condition; (c) place greater value on skill or achievement reinforcements and be generally more

concerned with their ability, particularly their failures; and (d) be resistive to subtle attempts to

influence him.” Overmier and Seligman (1967) found learned helplessness suggests a degree of
 15

control over responses that may immunize against learning to a t. In other words, learning

nothing one does can affect the situation and offers one a degree of control. However, it may also

prevent learning that helps one discover something that will have an effect. Seligman et al.

(1972) argue learned helplessness lowers performance by reducing the incentive for significant

response, resulting in lower response initiation. Miller and Seligman (1975) began to discuss

learned helplessness in terms of perceived control of specific circumstances leading to certain

outcomes.

Rothbaum, et al. (1982) introduced a two-process model of perceived control. Primary

control involves attempting to gain control over an individual's environment (changing the

world) and secondary control (changing the self) brings self into line with their environment

(Rothbaum, et al., 1982). Secondary control manifests in four ways: (a) predictive control -

passive and withdrawn behaviors reflect the ability to protect against disappointment; (b) illusory

control - reserving emotional investment and energy to take advantage of reserved strength,

being lucky; (c) vicarious control - submission to the power of others allows the individual to

share in that power; (d) interpretive control - attempt to find meaning in uncontrollable events to

accept them. When both primary and secondary forms of perceived control are recognized,

behaviors will begin to sustain rather than relinquish the perception of control (Rothbaum, et al.,

1982).

Bryant (1989) proposed a four-factor model of perceived control. Building on

Rothbaum's et al. (1982) primary and secondary processes and adding positive and negative

encounters, perceived control emerges as a four-factor model (Bryant, 1989). Based on self-

evaluation, the focus is on (a) primary-negative control (avoid negative experiences); (b)

secondary-negative control (cope with negative experiences); (c) primary positive control (obtain
 16

positive experiences); and (d) secondary-positive control (savor positive experiences) (Bryant,

1989).

Greenberger and Strasser (1986) studied personal control in an organizational context.

The study hypothesizes employees in an organization have a desire or need for control and that

they may constantly attempt to increase perceptions of control even if the organization does not

provide such opportunities (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986). In addition, they suggested important

situational events result in self-perceptions of control, and if expectations do not equal the

employee's perceptions of control, the individual may display behaviors to increase perceptions

of control (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986). Finally, it was concluded that if management

understood the personal control process, they could take steps to increase employee perceived

control (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986).

The Spector (1986) meta-analysis of employee perceived control literature found job

redesign and participative management to be the most researched topics. The employee

perceived control literature on job redesign focuses on autonomy which improves employee

productivity and job satisfaction (Spector, 1986). Studies of participative approaches found that

enhanced employee feelings of perceived control had a positive impact on employees if all

employees had the opportunity to participate (Spector, 1986). Furthermore, studies have

determined throughout an individual's life, their perceptions of perceived control are related to a

variety of successes and failures in life, including work (Skinner, 1996). Research also indicates

high levels of employee perceived control in the work environment suggests employees have a

fundamental need or aspiration for control over that environment (Tangirala & Ramanujam,

2008).
 17

Definition and Types of Employee Perceived Control

Employee perceived control can be defined as an employee’s perception of personal

control (real or not) over their work environment. Ganster (1989) defines control in the context

of work as the perceived ability to influence one's environment and control outcomes.

Averill (1973) identified three types of personal control: “behavioral control (direct

action on the environment), cognitive control (the interpretation of events), and decisional

control (having a choice among alternative courses of action)” (p.286). Behavioral control is then

subdivided into regulated administration and stimulus modification. Regulated administration as

a mode of control provides a reduction of uncertainty and the perception of control. Stimulus

modification entails the perception of controlling or modifying the nature of an event (Averill,

1973). Cognitive control is comprised of two elements: information gain and appraisal.

Information gain refers to the perception of knowing what may happen triggers perceived control

over the reaction. Appraisal is the imposition of meaning to gain perceived control over an event

(Averill, 1973). The choices made when acting in accordance with perceived beliefs is decisional

control (Averill, 1973). Guo et al. (2015) define information control (information and

transparency) as a type of employee perceived control.

Antecedents of Perceived Control

The Four Major Antecedents

Research indicates four major antecedents of perceived control: self-efficacy/locus of

control and autonomy/impact. Self-efficacy refers to an employee's confidence in the decisions

they make in the performance of their jobs (Bandura, 1986). Locus of control refers to a person's

belief about how much they control their lives (Thompson & Schlehofer, 2008). The internal

locus of control refers to the perception that good or bad outcomes can be achieved by a person's
 18

own actions. External locus of control is the perception that external forces, luck, chance, and

God are responsible for outcomes (Thompson & Schlehofer, 2008). Therefore, perceived control

is achieved when an employee believes their personal actions control outcomes, and they believe

they have the skill set to act on those actions (Thompson & Schlehofer, 2008).

Job autonomy is defined as the extent to which employees perceive they have some

control over their work. Employee impact is the perception they can control work outcomes

(Spreitzer, 1995) Therefore, when employees perceive job autonomy and impact on the work

situation, they experience high levels of employee perceived control (Brockner et al., 2004). So,

it is necessary for employees to perceive they have control over their situation to attain critical

work outcomes (Brockner et al., 2004).

Employee Characteristics

Kushnir and Melamed (1991) researched personality types to discern differences in the

effects of perceived control levels, specifically on personality type A and B. Type A personalities

are characterized as work-obsessed, competitive, hard-driving and operating at a more urgent

pace (Kushnir & Melamed, 1991). Type A’s require high levels of perceived control to maintain

their internal demand to work harder, longer, and faster (Lee et al., 1990). The results of the Lee

et al., (1990) study suggest perceived control enhances type A individuals’ performance and type

A's may tend to seek career opportunities that offer high levels of perceived control.

Leadership Characteristics

Parker and Price (1994) proposed that if managers have perceived control, then

employees would indirectly experience perceptions of control. Their study found that managers’

perceived control had a synergetic effect on employee's perceptions of their own control. In

addition, a manager's increased level of perceived control enabled the managers to be more
 19

supportive of employees, thereby, increasing employee’s levels of perceived control (Parker &

Price, 1994).

Organizational Culture

Thompson and Prottas (2005) suggest organizations that support a work-family integrated

culture foster an atmosphere for employee perceived control. Work-family cultures share

assumptions, beliefs, and values related to the commitment of working parents. The Thompson

and Prottas (2005) study further suggest employee perceived control plays a role in job design, in

addition to organizational support that relates to positive employee outcomes. Work-family

cultures support workplace flextime defined as an employee’s ability to influence and control the

circumstances of engaging in work related tasks (Hill et al., 2008). Hill et al. (2008) found

employees that used flextime had more perceived control at work and at home.

Samani et al. (2015) suggest physical work environment is an important antecedent for

employee perceived control. Lee and Brand (2005) researched the effect of employee perceived

control and use of personal workspace. Their study indicates a solid direct link between

perceived control over the physical work environment and perceived job performance (Lee and

Brand, 2005).

Outcomes of Perceived Control

Spector (1986) found employees with high levels of perceived control enjoy more job

satisfaction, commitment, involvement, and motivation. In addition, employee perceived control

is linked to employees having less emotional and physical distress, less role ambiguity and

conflict, better performance, and greater job expectancies (Spector, 1986). Also, employees are

absent less, have less intentions of quitting, and stay in employment situations longer (Spector,
 20

1986). Employee perceived control is strongly related to organizational commitment specifically

in organizations that demonstrate commitment to employees (Brockner et al., 2004).

O’Driscoll and Beehr (2000) found employee perceptions of control was significantly

correlated to job satisfaction and psychological strain. Olsen et al. (1995) determined the

perception of control over an employee's own career was a significant positive predictor of job

satisfaction. Ito and Brotheridge (2001) proposed in situations of career uncertainty, a lack of

perceived control leads to emotional exhaustion and burnout. Perceptions of control may build

confidence to cope with the dynamics involved in career transitioning and an employee's ability

to exert influence over career trajectory (Ito & Brotheridge, 2001).

Low employee perceived control can lead to apathy, helplessness, reduced organizational

commitment and job performance (Brockner, et al., 2004). Interestingly, employees perceiving a

low sense of control are motivated to engage in behaviors aimed at changing the status-quo

(Rothbaum et al., 1982). Therefore, employee voice can erupt as an outcome of low perceived

control when dissatisfaction is high (Brehm, 1966).

The Link Between Employee Voice Behavior and Perceived Control

Parker (1993) researched the relationship between perceived control, exit, and voice.

Although they examined the construct of self-efficacy and viewed employee voice as strictly the

voice of dissent, the connection with employee perceived control was detected. The Parker

(1993) study found that perceived control is linked to the willingness to voice dissent. In

addition, this study found that employees can and do change their circumstances if they perceive

they have the control to exercise their voice (Parker, 1993).

Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) examined the relationship between employee voice and

personal control. However, the study described personal control as a perception, which is
 21

perceived control (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). The study’s results suggested management

pay attention to the relationship between employee perceived control and employee voice

cautiously; findings indicate low perceived control could lead to employee stress and a decrease

in job satisfaction. The study also found that organizations can benefit from high perceived

control and that enhanced employee voice can strengthen organizational identification (Tangirala

& Ramanujam, 2008).

Remote Work

Although the term telecommuting was coined in 1973 by Jack Nilles, the idea of remote

work/home offices did not take off until mass production of the personal computer (Gupta,

2020). During the 1990s, home computers and the internet became affordable, and the idea of

working from home became real (Gupta, 2020). Fast forward thirty years not only did remote

work become real, but it also became mandatory.

The global pandemic disrupted daily lives; state governments mandated shutdowns, a

decrease in revenue forced temporary layoffs, and those fortunate enough to keep their job

worked remotely (Lord, 2020). A survey released by Gallup in October 2021, found 91% of full-

time workers in the U.S. working in a hybrid work situation are hoping to keep their hybrid

status well after the threat of the pandemic (Saad & Wingert, 2021).

Remote work has many perceived benefits. Barrero et al.'s (2021) Survey of Working

Arrangements and Attitudes found respondents indicated the remote work experience is better-

than-expected and resulted in high productivity rates. The pandemic created networks of

businesses, suppliers, and customers coordinating and partnering to survive and thrive in an

environment of remote work (Barrero et al., 2021). Roughly 37% of all jobs in the United States

can be performed remotely on a permanent basis (Dingel & Neiman, 2020). Barrero et al. (2021)
 22

estimates 435 million hours per month could be saved in commute time in a post pandemic

remote work environment. Advanced technologies in support of video communication for remote

work is following an upward trajectory since beginning of the pandemic (Bloom et al., 2021). In

addition, costs for information and communication technology infrastructure are decreasing in

support of remote work (Bloom et al., 2021).

The novelty of a rapid increase in remote work has also presented challenges. In the wake

of the pandemic, managers struggled with trust issues as to whether or not workers were working

at home (Parker et al., 2020). Some workers struggled to perform at the same levels of

productivity as they did at the office (Parker et al., 2020). As a result, some managers developed

unrealistic expectations, expecting subordinates to be available at all times, and ultimately

disrupting the work-home balance (Parker et al., 2020). Workplace engagement was also a

significant challenge (O'Connell & Willander, 2021). It was easy for employees to default

working solo, leaving collaboration on the table and teams dysfunctional (O’Connell &

Willander, 2021). Perhaps more importantly, though, remote employees can feel abandoned by

the organization (O’Connell & Willander, 2021). Without the connection that employees develop

by casually chatting in the office, relationships never have a chance to develop (O’Connell &

Willander, 2021). As a result, remote employees can suffer from a lack of clarity and direction

(O'Connell & Willander, 2021).

The focus of this study is employees at a local municipal government. Such entities are

likely to be negatively affected as a result of a permanent remote work scenario (Tassone, 2020).

This is because in many states, municipal income tax is withheld. Essentially, municipal income

tax is paid to local municipalities by employees that work in one municipality but live in another

(Tassone, 2020). These tax dollars are used for roadwork and infrastructure repairs (Troy, 2021).
 23

In Ohio, for example, this tax law has been challenged by a conservative think tank group

claiming it is a violation of the constitutions of Ohio and the United States to tax people that

neither work nor live in the municipality (Troy, 2021). As a result, many municipalities began

mandating employees report to the office, discontinuing working from home. However, on June

10, 2021, the White House announced federal government offices were authorized to allow

flexible remote work schedules to their employees as the Covid-19 virus mutates and the

pandemic continues (Maurer, 2021). The Federal government realized remote work is efficient,

improves morale and allows them to compete with the private sector for talent (Maurer, 2021).

Given that every type of organization, be it a for-profit or not-for-profit organization or the

government, is evaluating the benefits and challenges associated with remote work to help set

policies and practices for the future, this study is timely.

Research Hypotheses

Mechanisms and modalities of employee voice and perceived control are drastically

changing, altering the employment relationship, forcing employees and managers to seek other

communication solutions. As employers realize increased cost savings and higher levels of

productivity, and employees struggle with fear of exposure and enjoy reduced costs and

commute times, it seems likely remote work will be permanent in many sectors. Very little

research exists involving employee voice behavior and perceived control in a remote work

environment. This work begins to fill that gap in literature. Below are the research hypotheses:

H1 There will be a difference in perceived employee voice behavior between remote and in-

person work.

H2 There will be a difference in employees’ perceived control (process, decision, information)

between remote and in-person work.

 24

H3 The perceived level of importance associated with various modalities of expressing employee

voice will differ between remote and in-person work.

H4 The perceived level of satisfaction with various modalities of expressing employee voice will

differ between remote and in-person work.

 25

CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY

Participants

Due to the personal nature of employee voice behavior, employee perceived control, and

remote/in office work, this study focuses on the employee/supervisor relationship and not on the

organization as a whole. Data for this study came from employees of a local municipal

government in the Great Lakes region of the United States. The city has a population of 286,609,

median income is $50,988, with 52% female, 48% male, and the racial composition is White:

63%, Black or African American: 27%, two or more races: 5%, and 5% other, according to the

2020 census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).

Survey data was collected specifically from employees in the department of public

utilities. The composition of this local municipal government’s public utilities employees are

70% male, 30% female, 65% white, 25% Black or African American, 0.5 % two or more races,

and other 9.5%, according to departmental Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Reports

(Public Utilities 4th Quarter EEO Reports, 2021). The survey was emailed to all public utilities'

employees with a city email address. Represented employees include those from the labor union

(AFSCME Local 7), the supervisory union (AFSCME Local 2058), and the executive exempt

class (Exempt). Those without email address and field personnel were not permitted to work

remotely and, therefore, not relevant to this study.

The survey was sent to 240 employees representing the three employee groups of the

organization, the labor union (Local 7), the supervisory union (Local 2058), and the executive

exempt class (Exempt). Eighty-one employees (n=81) responded “Yes, I have worked remotely

in the last two years.” While fourteen responded, “No, I have not worked remotely in the last two

years,” and they were routed out of participating in the survey. Ravichandran and Arendt (2008)
 26

listed strategies to increase response rates for internet-based surveys. “These included (a)

contacting survey participants using a recognizable email address; (b) explaining that the study

was for educational purposes; (c) providing a response time of two weeks to complete the

survey; (d) keeping the survey shorter in length, i.e., to four pages or less and (e) collecting data

during February to March, if data were collected in spring.” All of these strategies were utilized

in this study to increase response rates. Utilizing financial incentives was also recommended by

Ravichandran and Arendt (2008) but financial constraints did not allow utilizing incentives in

this study.

Instrument Development

The survey (see Appendix A) was intended to measure the differences in local municipal

government employees' voice behavior and perceived control in an in-person and remote work

environment. Measurement items for perceived control were adapted from the measures used by

Guo et al. (2016). All perceived control statements were anchored to a 5-point Likert-type scale

with (1) being anchored to strongly disagree and (5) being strongly agree. See Appendix A for

survey items. Employee voice behavior measures were adapted from the Van Dyne and LePine

(1998) and were responded to using a Likert-type scale with (1) being strongly disagree and (5)

being strongly agree.

The Internal Communication and Organizational Engagement Questionnaire (ICOEQ)

was consulted to generate a list of modalities of employee voice (Ruck, 2016). A 5-point Likert-

type scale was utilized to measure the level of importance respondents assign to various

modalities of employee voice in an in-person environment vs. remote environment. Responses

ranged from (1) not important to (5) extremely important. Similarly, a 5-point Likert-type scale

with responses ranging from (1) very unsatisfied to (5) very satisfied was used to assess the level
 27

of satisfaction associated with various modalities while expressing employee voice both in-

person and remote environments. The survey concluded with demographic questions related to

gender, race/ethnicity, age, education level, tenure with the local government, and job type

according to the bargaining unit affiliation.

Data Collection

The survey was setup on Qualtrics™ and a link to the survey was emailed to all

employees in the department of public utilities with an email address as described above. All

respondents were over the age of 21 because of the local municipal government's hiring

requirements. The link to the survey took the participants to a consent page (see Appendix B)

where they were assured of their anonymity and confidentiality of responses. Once respondents

agreed to participate, they proceeded to answer the survey questions. The first question “Have

you worked remotely at any time in the past two years?” triggered whether a participant was

allowed to participate in the survey. Respondents had a total of two weeks to respond to the

survey with a reminder email being sent at the end of the first week. In a paper focusing on

response timeliness related to online surveys, Reynolds et al. (2009) found that 60% of responses

were received within the first two days of receiving the survey link. A reminder email tended to

bring the response level closer to the final number of responses (Reynolds et al., 2009).

The second question in the survey asked the respondents to "Please designate your

current work location.” Respondents were given two choices: “remote/home”, and “in the

office.” Unfortunately, no respondents indicated that they were currently working remotely.

Therefore, there was no opportunity to gain the perspective of an in-the-moment experience. The

survey required respondents to recall their past experience of working remotely. Although

remembering is an imperfect substitute for measuring in situ attitudes, researchers in realistic

 28

situations have effectively used the approach (Vogel & Wanke, 2016). Given the quickly

changing circumstances during data collection (the March 2022 during the COVID pandemic),

no other option was available to the researcher.

Current research indicates that control variables are often unnecessary and can negatively

impact interpretation (Becker et al., 2015). Although a few articles were found that addressed

impacts of age, education, and gender on voice and perceived control, the effect of these

variables on voice and perceived control were not consistent (Takeuchi et al., 2012, Duan et al.,

2017). Taking a conservative approach, the researcher examined whether age, education, and

gender showed a relation to voice and perceived control in these data. No sizeable or significant

effect was found (eta values of .08 to .20 and correlation coefficients -.20 to .01; Richardson,

2011). Hence, consistent with (Becker et al. 2015), they were excluded from the hypothesis tests.

Common Method Bias

This study adopted several steps as recommended by Podsakoff et al.'s (2003) to prevent

common method bias. These include (a) clarifying wording of question to make them clear and

concise; (b) adapting the measurement scale to the context of this study; (c) guaranteeing

anonymity to survey respondents; (d) communicating to respondents that the data collected will

be stored securely and that results will only be reported as an aggregate; and (e) utilizing three

different scale response options and anchor labels.

 29

CHAPTER III. RESULTS

Respondent Demographics

Of the 240 employees representing the three employee groups of the organization to

whom the survey was emailed, eighty-one employees (n=81) responded “Yes, I have worked

remotely in the past two years” to the filter question while 14 responded, “No, I have not worked

remotely in the past two years.” This resulted in a response rate of 39.5%. Eliminating the

respondents who answered “No” to the filter question, 81 respondents were considered for

further analysis.

Although most employees in the Department of Public Utilities are male, the types of

typical positions males fill would not have been permitted to work remotely. Therefore, they

were not a part of the target sample for this research. Consequently, 52% of the survey

respondents were female, 41% were male, and 7% preferred not to say. While the demographics

of the local government utility somewhat mirrors the demographics of the municipality, study

respondents were 79% White, 16% Black or African American, three percent Hispanic or Latino,

one percent two or more races, and one percent other. A possible explanation for the racial

disparity in participants is the lack of Black or African American, Hispanic, or Latino and other

races, pursuing a career in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) related

professional classifications, of which most of the employees permitted to work remotely were a

part (Fowler & Schreiber, 2017).

Thirty-nine percent of the respondents had a bachelor's degree, 16% have a master's

degree or higher, and 16% had an associate degree; 3% of the respondents went to trade school,

and 26% had a high school diploma or GED to demonstrate high school academic knowledge.

Employees belonging to all three employee groups of the organization responded to the survey
 30

with 41% responding from Local 7 (labor union), 36% from Local 2058 (supervisory union), and

23% executive exempt. The mean age of the respondents was 51, with a standard deviation of

10, and the mean tenure with the local municipal government was 14 years with a standard

deviation of nine years.

Construct Characteristics

The results showed employee voice behavior and employee perceived control are directly

and significantly correlated as shown in Table 1. The Cronbach’s alpha scores for the constructs

in this study ranged from .86 to .93 indicating good to excellent internal consistency.

Due to the number of respondents, however, confirmatory, or exploratory factor analysis

was not appropriate for a sample of this size.

The data were closely examined and no evidence of “Satisficing” or selecting “I do not

agree or disagree,” instead of reporting an opinion was found (Krosnick, 1991). In addition, data

were checked for inattentive respondents and any responses without regard to content, by

reviewing survey response durations; no inattentive responding was detected (Berry et al., 2019).

Finally, all incomplete responses were purged from the data set.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Cronbach's Alpha for Perceived

Control and Employee Voice Behavior

Variable N M SD PC PC EVB Cronbach’s

Remote Office Remote Alpha
Perceived Control 81 3.76 0.86 0.92
Remote= PC Remote
Perceived Control in- 75 3.72 0.88 .73** 0.93
Person= PC Office
Employee Voice 76 3.8 0.79 .76** .71** 0.86
Behavior Remote= EVB
Remote
Employee Voice 74 3.8 0.75 .66** .80** .81** 0.87
Behavior in-person=
EVB Office

**Correlation is significant at p < 0.01.

 31

Hypotheses Analysis

The first hypothesis, which proposed that there will be a difference in perceived

employee voice behavior between remote and in-person work, was not supported. This study

found a -.01 difference in the means between employee voice behavior in remote and in-office

settings, (M=-.01, SD= .48) t(73) =-0.12, p = 0.90. The second hypothesis predicted a difference

in employees’ perceived control between remote and in-person work. Results showed a .03 mean

difference between remote employee perceived control and in-person employee perceived

control, (M= .03, SD= .64), t(74), = 0.47 p= 0.64. Thus, hypothesis two is not supported.

The third hypothesis was that the level of importance associated with various modalities

of expressing employee voice will differ between remote and in-person work. This study found a

significant difference between the level of importance associated with Zoom staff meetings while

working in-person vs. remotely (see Table 2). Because a significant difference between the levels

of importance associated with modalities including email, calls/text, personal social media, and

one to one zoom were not found for in-person vs. remote work, this hypothesis is partially

supported. The result of the t-test for social media should be viewed with some caution because

the sample did not reach the level of responses (30) required to invoke the central limit theorem.

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Effect Size for the Levels of Importance of

Communication Methods While Remote/in Office

Variable N M SD t(df), p Cohen’s d

Zoom Staff Meetings 63 4.71/3.48 0.89/1.26 4.15(62), 0.02* 0.26 0.78

Email 71 4.52/4,42 0.61/0.67 1.36(70), 0.20 -0.08 0.39

Calls/Text 71 4.06/4.42 0.88/1.02 1.45(70), 0.15 -0.06 0.41

Personal Social Media 26 1.50/1.46 0.65/0.81 0.30(25), 0.77 -0.33 0.44

One to One Zoom 42 3.29/3.10 1.33/1.40 1.09(41), 0.28 -0.14 0.47

*Significant at p < .05.

 32

The fourth and last hypothesis proposed that the perceived level of satisfaction with

various modalities of expressing employee voice will differ between remote and in-person work.

As shown in Table 3, the level of satisfaction significantly differed for the modalities of

expressing employee voice between remote and in-person work, for Zoom staff meetings and

one to one Zoom meetings. No significant difference was found for other modalities. Like with

hypothesis three, the result of the t-test for social media should be viewed with some caution

because the sample did not reach the level of responses (30) required to invoke the central limit

theorem. Thus, the fourth hypothesis was partially supported. It should be noted that participants

were given a “not applicable” option because not all employees have access to all forms of

modalities. The differences in sample sizes when selecting importance and satisfaction with

modalities is due to some employees selecting “not applicable.”

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Effect Size of the Level of Satisfaction with

Communication Methods

Variables N M SD t(df), p Cohen’s d

Zoom Staff 59 4.12/3.69 1.04/1.16 2.80(58), 0.01* 0.10 0.63

Meetings
Email 72 4.25/4.07 1.58/1.13 1.93(71), 0.06 -0.01 0.46

Calls/Text 70 4.24/4.14 0.97/0.95 1.02(69), 0.31 -0.11 0.36

Personal Social 11 3.00/2.82 0.89/0.60 0.69(10), 0.50 -0.40 0.80

Media
One to One Zoom 36 4.06/3.42 1.04/1.23 3.33(35), 0.01* 0.20 0.90

*Significant at p < .05.

 33

CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION

Discussion of Results

The broad goal of this study was to determine if employee voice behavior and perceived

control would vary based on employees working remotely versus in-person. Data were collected

from employees at a department of public utilities in a local municipal government in the Great

Lakes region of the U.S. who worked remotely and in-person. Pre-pandemic, only six percent of

the American workforce worked primarily from home; however, in May 2020, over one-third of

those employed worked remotely (Coate, 2021). The work from home trend is expected to

continue as Parker et al. (2022) found that among those with job responsibilities that can be

performed remotely, 76% indicated their preference for remote work was no longer based on

concerns about the coronavirus (Parker et al, 2022).

During these unprecedented circumstances, it is important to determine the relationships

among in-person and remote work and these crucial employee behaviors. Employee voice has

been linked to outcomes of employee-driven innovation, performance, and employee job

satisfaction. Employee perceived control is also associated with increased job satisfaction and

job performance/productivity, and reduced stress (LePine and Van Dyne, 1998; Spector, 1986).

The first and second hypothesis in this study proposed there would be differences in

employee voice behavior based on whether they work remotely or in-person. However, the

results did not support this proposition. The mean for employee voice (LePine & Van Dyne,

1998) for both remote and in-person was 3.80. Reviewing past studies that used a five-point

Likert scale to measure employee voice behavior, the average was 3.41, with a range of 2.62 to

4.2, (Detert & Burris, 2007, Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008, Oi & Ming-Xia, 2014, Ka &

Aboobaker, 2020, Zhu et al., 2022). This study’s data suggests that voice behavior and perceived
 34

control are stable attitudes (Vogel & Wanke, 2016) that are not impacted by the move from in-

person to remote work. As more employees press for remote work arrangements, these data

indicate that managers should not expect voice or perceived control to impacted (negatively or

positively) when employees work remotely.

Hypotheses three and four predicted a difference in employees’ perceived levels of

importance and satisfaction, respectively, with various communication methods while working

remotely and in-person; both hypotheses were partially supported. Communication methods

included in this study were Zoom staff meetings, email, phone calls/text, personal social media,

and one-to-one Zoom meetings with supervisors. Of the various communication methods

measured, a significant difference in communication level importance was only found for Zoom

staff meetings for in-person versus remote work settings. Significant differences in satisfaction

levels were found for both Zoom staff meetings and one-to-one Zoom meetings comparing in-

person versus remote work conditions. The higher mean scores for importance and satisfaction

with Zoom staff meetings while working remotely and the finding of significant differences in

satisfaction and importance associated with Zoom staff meetings may be explained by the need

to connect with supervisors and peers due to feelings of isolation during the pandemic. Karl et al.

(2022) suggests some individuals felt that Zoom meetings, in the absence of face-to-face

meetings, were important because it was an opportunity to enhance relationships with co-

workers by getting a glimpse into their personal lives.

The higher mean satisfaction score for one-to-one Zoom meetings with supervisors and

the significant differences in means between remote in-person work for this communication

method is supported by the CIPD finding that 62% of employees that expressed voice did so in

one-to-one meetings with their supervisor. This finding is supported by Barbieri et al. (2021) and
 35

their study of job demands, workload, social isolation, and the individual’s well-being, in that

interaction with a supervisor and the team, even virtually, is an important and satisfying form of

communication when working remotely.

Although the participants in this study found Zoom staff meetings important, they did not

indicate they were satisfying. Yang et al., (2022) suggests employees may prefer to communicate

with individuals with whom they have strong ties, so perhaps, these respondents did not have

strong ties to all attendees in the zoom staff meetings. Additionally, one-to-one zoom meetings

were found to be both important and satisfying, which may indicate employees found it

important and satisfying to spend their time collaborating with supervisors with whom they have

stronger ties and are better suited for information transfer (Yang et al., 2022).

A possible explanation for not finding significant differences in communication methods

including email and phone calls/text may be that these participants were already aware of how

important these modes of communication were and did not experience a change in their value

when working remotely. Nguyen et al. (2021) found although the volume of emails and phone

calls/texts may have increased during forced remote work, for the participants in their study,

these methods provided a lesser form of connectedness. This study also found personal social

media was not an important form of communication for these participants, nor was it a satisfying

communication modality. In fact, it is surprising anyone responded to this modality, because the

local municipal government whose employees were surveyed for this study has administrative

policies regarding the use of personal social media that could lead to disciplinary actions

including termination.
 36

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Theoretical Implications

This study provides the following theoretical contributions: first it investigates the

differences in employee voice behavior in a remote work and an in-person environment.

Although additional literature is currently being published on employee voice and remote work,

based on a review of literature, this is the only work that focuses on the difference in employee

voice as a result of in-person versus remote work. Second, this research examined differences in

employee perceived control in remote versus in-person work environments. Again, even though

additional research is being published on remote work, a literature review indicates this is the

only study that looked at differences in employee perceived control based on work

environments. Considering the importance of outcomes associated with employee voice and

perceived control, the results of this study are timely and relevant. Third, this study looked at the

importance of, and satisfaction with, various modalities of employee voice behavior in in-person

and remote work situations. Not surprisingly, study results showed virtual meetings were

important and satisfying, specifically during a pandemic when employees were craving

interaction due to social isolation.

Practical Implications

This work has noteworthy implications for those in supervisory and managerial positions,

in that if these participants did not experience a difference in employee voice opportunities, in a

remote work environment versus in-person, then perhaps there was not a negative impact on

employee voice outcomes such as employee innovation, improved productivity, and improved

efficiencies (LePine and Van Dyne, 1998). Additionally, if these participants did not experience

a change in their perception of job control, in a remote versus in-person work situation, managers

may find their employees have similar perceived control outcomes in a fully remote work

environment. This study’s results may imply that organizations considering moving some of
 37

their operations to a fully remote work situation as a cost saving measure may not experience

differences in employee voice or perceived control.

Communication is critical, but in a remote work environment it is essential. The results of

this study demonstrate the importance associated with Zoom staff meetings and the importance

and satisfaction associated with communicating via one-to-one Zoom meetings with supervisors.

It is recommended that organizations with remote employees create opportunities to facilitate

meetings via platforms such as Zoom, with those individuals with whom employees have

stronger ties (Yang et al., 2022) such as direct supervisors. The Massachusetts Department of

Transportation (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2022) has published guidelines for hosting

successful virtual meetings including:

• Keep it simple – graphics and narratives should translate easily

• Confine meeting agendas to one or two topics – this may increase participation and more

effective communication

• Vary meeting times – virtual meetings easily allow for meeting times to change to enhance

participation

• Engage Participants – virtual meetings provide an opportunity for a variety of participants to have

a voice, both on screen and in the chat function

In addition, the local municipal government could host an internal web page to encourage

employee voice, thereby providing an outlet for employees to express voice. One potential

benefit of an internal web page is it may provide a modality to those who express voice through

silence (Holland et al., 2016). Another possible benefit of an internal web page for employee

voice is real-time information updates allowing employees to discuss ideas as they evolve

(Holland et al., 2016). Finally, an internal web page may allow leaders to crowdsource problem-
 38

solving ideas, thereby increasing employee involvement and ownership of solutions (Holland et

al., 2016).

Limitations and Future Research

Even though measures were taken to control common method bias as recommended by

Podsakoff et al.'s (2003) a possible limitation of this study is participants were surveyed about

remote and in-person work in the same survey which may have introduced a common method

bias. Respondents may have been confused by the repetition of the same questions if they had

not thoroughly read the instructions on how to answer each question and answered the questions

with the same responses. However, the findings of significant differences in Zoom modalities

would indicate otherwise.

Another possible limitation of this study may be that although all participants had

worked remotely due to the pandemic, the survey was administered when employees had

returned to work in-person, asking them to recall experiences related to remote work.

Autobiographical recall is not the optimal situation for conducting a survey because people

forget details associated with events (Bradburn et al., 1987). Although remembering is an

imperfect substitute for measuring in situ attitudes, researchers in realistic situations have

effectively used the approach (Vogel & Wanke, 2016). Clarke et al., (2008) found extremely

short recall periods may eliminate problems caused by recall error; however, the elimination of

recall error may come at the cost of losing pertinent information. Ideally, a survey would have

been administered prior to the pandemic’s forced remote work, again during remote work, and

after employees were forced back to in-person work.

An additional limitation may have been the size of the sample. Although respondents had

two weeks to respond to the survey with a reminder email being sent out at the end of the first
 39

week, the relatively small number of 240 eligible employees in the department of public utilities

may have been an issue. Although the type of work and funding are different in other

departments at the local municipal government, sending the survey link to all departments within

the local municipal government may have increased the sample size. The results of this study are

also not generalizable beyond the sample of this study and contexts of a department of public

utilities in the local city government in the United States. Additionally, the respondents were

overwhelmingly white females that were permitted to work remotely during the pandemic, so

responses are not generalizable beyond these demographic characteristics.

Future work should consider adopting a qualitative approach, such as in-depth interviews

with employees or focus groups, to learn more about attitudes and preferences related to

workplace communication. A more comprehensive study including other variables, such as self-

efficacy, psychological safety, and employee driven innovation that could impact work culture in

a remote work environment can also help capture organizational differences and nuances.

Another future direction for research is to examine the moderating role of work modality

between employee voice and perceived control and outcome variables such as workplace

innovation and productivity.

An additional topic for future research may be to study the effects of social media, both

positive and negative, for use by government employees to express voice behavior. However,

such a study would have to take into consideration Sunshine Laws, public policies, and labor

laws regarding the consequences for government administrators and employees (Gollan &

Patmore, 2013). For example, as employees of the City of Westlake, Ohio, the City’s social

media policy emphasizes that City employees don’t have an expectation of privacy in anything

posted online. There are also restrictions related to posting content during work hours,
 40

identifying the employee’s official position in the City, and other related matters (City of

Westlake, Ohio, n.d.).

While research studies on the role of voice behavior in the public sector are available

from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, surprisingly little research exists on the behaviors of

employee voice in governmental organizations in the U. S. (Gambarotto & Cammozzo, 2010,

Yan & Xiao, 2016, Potipiroon & Wongpreedee, 2021, Um-e-Rubbab & Naqvi, 2020). A future

direction for employee voice in government could include local departments of transportation,

state departments of transportation, as well as the Federal Highway Administration, thereby,

reaching employees in similar roles but different levels of bureaucracy.

 41

REFERENCES

Alang, T., Stanton, P., & Rose, M. (2022). Enhancing employee voice and inclusion through

inclusive leadership in public sector organizations. Public Personnel Management,

009102602210855. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221085583

Allen, M. (2020). Chapter 3. Hirschman and voice. Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T. &

Freeman, R. (2020) Handbook of research on employee voice. Edward Elgar Publishing

Alexander, A., Smet, A., Langstaff, M. & Ravid, D. (2021) What employees are saying about the

future of remote work. April 2021 McKinsey & Company.

Averill, J. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress.

Psychological Bulletin 80 (4).

Axtell, C., Holman, D., Unsworth, K., Wall, T., Waterson, P. & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor

innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of

Occupational and Psychology, 73(3) 265-285.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice

Hall

Barbieri, B., Balia, S., Sulis, I., Cois, E., Cabras, C., Atzara, S., & De Simone, S. (2021). Don’t

call it smart: Working from home during the pandemic crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12,

741585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.741585

Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2021). Question repository for the survey of working

arrangements and attitudes. https://wfhresearch.com/survey-design-and-question-

repository/

Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016).

Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational

 42

researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.bgsu.edu/10.1002/job.2053

Berry, K., Rana, R., Lockwood, A., Fletcher, L., & Pratt, D. (2019). Factors associated with

inattentive responding in online survey research. Personality and Individual Differences,

149, 157–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.043

Bloom, N., Davis, S. J., & Zhestkova, Z. (2021). COVID-19 Shifted Patent Applications toward

Technologies that Support Working from Home. Brecker Freidman Institute

Boisot, M., & Child, J. (1988). The Iron Law of Fiefs: Bureaucratic failure and the problem of

governance in the Chinese economic reforms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4),

507. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392641

Bolino, M., Kacmar, M., Turnley, W. & Gilstrap, J. (2008). A multi-level review of impression

management motives and behaviors. Journal of management 34(6), 1081-1109.

Bradburn, N. M., Rips, L. J., & Shevell, S. K. (1987). Answering autobiographical questions:

The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science (New York, N.Y.), 236(4798),

157–161. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563494

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

Brockner, J., Spreitzer, G., Mishra, A., Hochwarter, W., Pepper, L., & Weinberg, J. (2004).

Perceived Control as an Antidote to the Negative effects of layoffs on survivors'

organizational commitment and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1),

76–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131456

Brown, J. S., & Jacobs, A. (1949). The role of fear in the motivation and acquisition of

responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(6), 747–759. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.bgsu.edu/10.1037/h0062836
 43

Bryant, F. B. (1989). A four-factor model of perceived control: Avoiding, coping, obtaining, and

savoring. Journal of Personality, 57(4), 773–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1989.tb00494.x

Burris, E. R. (2012). The Risks and Rewards of Speaking Up: Managerial Responses to

Employee Voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851–875.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562

Burris, E., Detert, J., & Romney, A. (2013). Speaking up vs. being heard: The disagreement

around outcomes of employee voice. Organization Science, 24(1), 22-38.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2019) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/index.html

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2019) Talking about voice:

employees' experiences

Chen, A., & Hou, Y. (2016). The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for

innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation examination. The Leadership Quarterly,

27(1), 1–13. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bgsu.edu/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.007

Chou, S. & Barron, K. (2016). Employee voice behavior revisited: Its forms and antecedents.

Management Research Review, 39(12), 1720-1737.

City of Toledo, Department of Public Utilities, 4th Quarter Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO) Reports, 2021. Available upon request.

City of Westlake, Ohio (n.d.). Social media policy for the City of Westlake, Ohio.

https://www.cityofwestlake.org/DocumentCenter/View/12720/City-of-Westlake-Social-

Media-Policy-OFFICIAL
 44

Clarke, P. M., Fiebig, D. G., & Gerdtham, U.-G. (2008). Optimal recall length in survey design.

Journal of Health Economics, 27(5), 1275–1284.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.05.012

Coate, P. (2021) Remote Work Before, During, and After the Pandemic Quarterly Economics

Briefing–Q4 2020. Remote Work Before, During, and After the Pandemic (ncci.com)

Dedahanov, A., Rhee, C. & Gapurjanova, N. (2019). Job autonomy and employee voice: Is

work-related self-efficacy a missing link? Management Decisions, 57(9), 2401-2413.

Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R. (2013). Voice flows to and around

Leaders: understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213510151

Dingel, J. I., & Neiman, B. (2020). How many jobs can be done at home? Journal of Public

Economics, 189, 104235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235

Duan, J., Li, C., Xu, Y. & Wu, C. (2017). Transformational leadership and employee voice

behavior: A Pygmalion mechanism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38650-670.

Dutton, J., Ashford, S., Lawrence, K. & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green light:

Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science 13(4)

355-369.

Edmondson, A. & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an

interpersonal construct. Annual review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational

Behavior 1(1) 23-43.

Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-

efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management

Journal, 57(4), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0393

 45

Fowler, A., & Schreiber, I. (2017). Engaging under-represented minorities in STEM through

game jams. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Game Jams,

Hackathons, and Game Creation Events, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3055116.3055120

Freeman, R. & Medoff, J. (1985). What Do Unions Do? Industrial and labor relations review,

38(2) 244-263.

Gambarotto, F., & Cammozzo, A. (2010). Dreams of silence: Employee voice and innovation in

a public sector community of practice. Innovation, 12(2), 166–179.

https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.12.2.166

Ganster, D. (1989). Worker control and wellbeing: A review of research in the workplace. 3-24

Sauter, S., Hurrell, J. & Cooper, C. (1989). Job control and health. Wiley & Sons

Grant, A. (2013). Rocking the Boat but Keeping It Steady: The Role of Emotion Regulation in

Employee Voice. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1703–1723.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0035

Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and Application of a Model of Personal

Control in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 11(1) 164-177.

Gollan, P. J., & Patmore, G. (2013). Perspectives of legal regulation and employment relations at

the workplace: Limits and challenges for employee voice. Journal of Industrial Relations,

55(4), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185613489392

Gorden, W. (1988). Range of employee voice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,

1(4), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01556937

Gossett, L. M., & Kilker, J. (2006). My job sucks: Examining counter institutional web sites as

locations for organizational member voice, dissent, and resistance. Management

Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318906291729

 46

Guo, L., Lotz, S., Tang, C. & Gruen, T. (2015). The role of perceived control in customer value

co-creation and service recovery evaluation, Journal of Service Research 19(1) 39-56.

Gupta, A. (2020) The history of remote work: How it came to be what it is today. Sorry I was on

mute Digital Newsletter https://www.sorryonmute.com/history-remote-work-industries/?

He, B., He, Q., & Sarfraz, M. (2021). Inclusive Leadership and Subordinates' Pro-Social Rule

Breaking in the Workplace: Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy and Moderating Role of

Employee Relations Climate. Psychology research and behavior management, 14, 1691–

1706. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S333593

Heaphy, E., Lilius, J., & Feldman, E. (2021). Moved to speak up: How prosocial emotions

influence the employee voice process. Human Relations, 001872672110075.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211007539

Hernandez, W., Luthanen, A., Ramsel, D., & Osatuke, K. (2015). The mediating relationship of

self-awareness on supervisor burnout and workgroup Civility & Psychological Safety: A

multilevel path analysis. Burnout Research, 2(1), 36–49.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2015.02.002

Hill, J., Grzywacz, J., Allen, J., Blanchard, S., Matz-Costa, V., Shulkin, C., & Pitt-Catsouphes, S.

(2008). Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Community, Work & Family,

11(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800802024678

Hirschman, A. (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and

states. Harvard University Press

Holland, P., Cooper, B., & Hecker, R. (2016). Use of social media at work: A new form of

employee voice? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(21),

2621-2634, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1227867

 47

Hsiung, H. (2012). Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level

psychological process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 349–361.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1043-2

Huang, X., de Vliert, E., & der Vegt, G. (2005). Breaking the Silence Culture: Stimulation of

Participation and Employee Opinion Withholding Cross-nationally. Management and

Organization Review, 1(3), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00023.x

Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2001). An examination of the roles of career uncertainty,

flexibility, and control in predicting emotional exhaustion. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

59(3), 406–424. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1800

Ka, Z., & Aboobaker, N. (2021). Spiritual leadership and intention to stay: Examining the

mediating role of employee voice behavior. Journal of Management Development, 40(5),

352–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-05-2019-0182

Karl, K., Peluchette, J., & Aghakhani, N. (2022). Virtual work meetings during the COVID-19

Pandemic: The Good, Bad, and Ugly. Small Group Research, 53(3), 343–365.

https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211015286

Kaufman, B. (2020). Chapter 2. Employee voice before Hirschman: It's early history,

conceptualization, and practice. Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T. & Freeman, R.,

(2020) Handbook of research on employee voice. Edward Elgar Publishing

Krosnick, J. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude

measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5(3), 213- 236.

Kwon, B., Farndale, E., & Park, J. G. (2016). Employee voice and work engagement: Macro,

meso, and micro-level drivers of convergence? Human Resource Management Review,

26(4), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.04.005

 48

Kowtha, N., Landau, J., & Beng, C. (2001). The culture of voice: Exploring the relationship

between employee voice and organizational culture. ResearchGate. 1-34.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265524987

Kushnir, T., & Melamed, S. (1991). Work-load, perceived control and psychological distress in

Type A/B industrial workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(2), 155–168.

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030120207

Lebel, R. (2016). Moving beyond fight and flight: A contingent model of how the emotional

regulation of anger and fear sparks proactivity. Academy of Management Review, 42(2)

190-206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0368

Lebel, R., & Patil, S. V. (2018). Proactivity despite discouraging supervisors: The powerful role

of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 724–737.

https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000301

Lee, S. & Brand, J. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work

environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25(3) 323-333.

Lee, C., Ashford, S., and Bobko, P. (1990). Interactive Effects of "Type A" Behavior and

Perceived Control on Worker Performance, Job Satisfaction, and Somatic Complaints. The

Academy of Management Journal, 33(4) 870-881.

LePine, J. & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of

contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality

characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.326

Lord, P. (2020). The Social Perils and Promise of Remote Work. SSRN Electronic Journal.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3613235
 49

Lyu, X. (2016). Effect of organizational justice on work engagement with psychological safety

as a mediator: Evidence from China. Social Behavior and Personality: an international

journal, 44(8) 1359-1370.

Madrid, H. (2020). Emotion regulation, positive affect, and promotive voice behavior at work.

Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1739. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01739

Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2022)

https://www.mass.gov/guides/guidelines-for-successful-virtual-public-meetings

Maurer, R. (2021). Federal government to preserve flexible work post-pandemic. Society of

Human Resource Managers (SHRM) https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-

news/pages/federal-government-preserve-flexible-work-post-pandemic.aspx

Maynes, T., & Podsakoff, P. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature,

antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 99(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034284,

Maxfield, D. (2016) How a culture of silence eats away at your company. Harvard Business

Review December 07, 2016. https://hbr.org/2016/12/how-a-culture-of-silence-eats-away-at-

your-company

Mihalache, M. & Mihalache, O. (2021). How workplace support for the COVID-19 pandemic

and personality traits affect changes in employees' affective commitment to the

organization and job-related well-being. Human Resource Management, Special Issue 61:

295-314. 10.1002/hrm.22082

Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. (1975). Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 84(3), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076720

 50

Miles, S. J., & Mangold, W. G. (2014). Employee voice: Untapped resource or social media time

bomb? Business Horizons, 57(3), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.12.011

Milliken, F., Morrison, E., & Hewlin, P. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence:

Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. Journal of Management

Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387

Miltz, K., (2021). Global telework and trend COVID 2020-2021. Statista, October 14, 2021.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1199110/remote-work-trends-covid-survey-september-

december/

Morrison, E. (2011). Employee voice behavior: integration and directions for future research.

Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.

https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

Moss Kanter, R. (2019). Companies think they want new ideas. But they don't act like it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-think-they-want-new-ideas-but-they-dont-act-

like-it-01572606135

National Labor Relations Board. (2013). National Labor Relations Act [Title 29, Chapter 7,

Subchapter II, United States Code. Retrieved November 27, 2021, from

http://www.nlrb.gov/ national-labor-relations-act

Newstrom, J., Davis, K. (1993). Organizational behavior: Human behavior at work. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Nguyen, M., Gruber, J., Fuchs, J., Marler, W., Hunsaker, A., & Hargittai, E. (2020). Changes in

Digital Communication During the COVID-19 Global Pandemic: Implications for Digital

Inequality and Future Research. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 205630512094825.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120948255
 51

Nilles, J. (1973) Telecommunications-Transportation Tradeoff: Options for tomorrow John

Willey & Sons

O'Connell, B & Willander, E. (2021) The biggest remote-work lessons managers have learned.

Society of Human Resource Managers (SHRM)

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/people-managers/pages/lessons-after-a-

year-of-remote-work.aspx

O'Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (2000). Moderating effects of perceived control and need for

clarity on the relationship between role stressors and employee affective reactions. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 140(2), 151–159.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600454

Qi & Ming-Xia (2014). Ethical leadership, organizational identification, and employee voice:

Examining moderated mediation process in the Chinese insurance industry, Asia Pacific

Business Review, 20(2), 231-248. DOI: 10.1080/13602381.2013.823712

Olsen, D., Maple, S. A., & Stage, F. K. (1995). Women and minority faculty job satisfaction:

Professional role interests, professional satisfactions, and institutional fit. The Journal of

Higher Education, 66(3), 267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943892

Olson, M. (1983). Remote office work: Changing work patterns in space in time.

Communications of the AMC, 26 (3).

Overmier, J. B., & Seligman, M. E. (1967). Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape

and avoidance responding. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63(1),

28–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024166
 52

Parker, L. (1993). When to fix it and when to leave: Relationships among perceived control, self-

efficacy, dissent, and exit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 949–959.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.949

Parker, L. & Price, R. (1994). Empowered managers and empowered workers: The effects of

managerial support and managerial perceived control on workers' sense of control over

decision making. Human Relations 47(8) 911-928.

Parker, S. Knight, C. & Keller, A. (2020) Remote managers are having trust issues. Harvard

Business Review

Parker, K., Horowitz, J., & Minkin, R. (2022). Covid-19 Pandemic continues to reshape work in

America. Pew Research Center, February 16, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-

trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/02/PSDT_2.16.22_covid_work_report_clean.pdf

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J-Y., Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases

in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and

Suggestions for Future Research. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 26(3), 51.

Potipiroon, W., & Wongpreedee, A. (2021). Ethical climate and whistleblowing intentions:

Testing the mediating roles of public service motivation and psychological safety among

local government employees. Public Personnel Management, 50(3), 327–355.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020944547

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1969). The context of organization

structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391366

 53

Purvis, R., Zaganczyk, T., & McCray, G. (2015). What's in it for me? Using expectancy theory

and climate to explain stakeholder participation, its direction, and intensity. International

Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 3–14.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.003

Ravazzani, S., & Mazzei, A. (2018). Employee anonymous online dissent: dynamics and ethical

challenges for employees, targeted organizations, online outlets, and audiences. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 28(2), 175–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.29

Ravichandran, S., & Arendt, S. (2008). How to increase response rates when surveying

hospitality managers for curriculum-related research: Lessons from past studies and

interviews with lodging professionals. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 8(1),

47-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220802410054

Reynolds, S., Sharp, A., & Anderson, K. (2009). Proceedings of the Australian and New

Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne-

Sharp/publication/266471625_Online_Surveys_Response_timeliness_issues_of_design_O

nline_Surveys_Response_timeliness_issues_of_design/links/556ba5e708aec22683037c00/

Online-Surveys-Response-timeliness-issues-of-design-Online-Surveys-Response-

timeliness-issues-of-design.pdf

Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in

educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001

Rockefeller, J. D., Jr (1916) The Colorado Industrial Plan, published by author.

Robinson, B. (May 2, 2021) Future of work: What the post-pandemic workplace holds for

remote workers' career. Frobes.com

 54

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2021/05/02/future-of-work-what-the-post-

pandemic-workplace-holds-for-remote-workers careers/?sh=4652a08e7f5b

Rosenberger, A. (2013). Early lessons from The NLRB On social media. The Legal Intelligencer

— Social Media Law. May 7, 2013,

http://www.evergreeneditions.com/article/Early+Lessons+From+The+NLRB+On+Social+

Media/1393923/158209/article.html

Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. & Snyder, S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-

process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42(1), 5-

37.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80(1) 1-28.

Ruck, K. (2016) Informed employee voice: the synthesis of internal corporate communication

and employee voice and the associations with organizational engagement. University of

Central Lancashire https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/96678329.pdf

Saad, L. & Wigert, B. (2021) Remote Work Persisting and Trending Permanent. Gallup, October

13, 2021. https://news.gallup.com/poll/355907/remote-work-persisting-trending-

permanent.aspx

Samani, S., Rasid, S., & Sofian, S. (2015). Perceived level of personal control over the work

environment and employee satisfaction and work performance. Performance Improvement,

54(9), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21499

Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

ISBN 978-0-470-18586-5
 55

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M., & Macey, W. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual

Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-

143809

Seligman, M., Maier, S., & Solomon, R. (1972). Chapter 6 - Unpredictable and uncontrollable

aversive events, Brush, R. Aversive conditioning and learning, 347-400, Academic Press

ISBN 9780121379506. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-137950-6.50011-0.

Shipton, H., King, D., Pautz, N. & Baczor, L. (2019). Talking about voice: Employees'

experiences. Report Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) Skinner, E.

A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

71(3), 549–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.549

Skinner, E. (1996). The origins of young children’s perceived control: Mother contingent and

sensitive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development. (9) 359-382.

Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) (2017) Understanding and developing

organizational culture. SHRM Website https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-

samples/toolkits/pages/understandinganddevelopingorganizationalculture.aspx

Spreitzer, G. (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,

and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

Spector, P. (1986) Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning

autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005-1016.

Sun, J., Liden, R., & Ouyang, L. (2019). Are servant leaders appreciated? An investigation of

how relational attributions influence employee feelings of gratitude and prosocial

behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5), 528-540.

 56

Takeuchi, R., Chen, Z., & Cheung, S. (2012). Applying uncertainty management theory to

employee voice behavior: An integrative investigation: Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 283–

323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01247.x

Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring Nonlinearity In Employee Voice: The Effects

of Personal Control and Organizational Identification. Academy of Management Journal,

51(6), 1189–1203. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.35732719

Tangirala, S. and Ramanujam, R. (2012), Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining

the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel Psychology,

65(2) 251-282. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bgsu.edu/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01248.x

Tassone, C. (2020). Ohio Tax Talk: Rethinking the work-from-home tax. Law 360 Tax

Authority. https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/articles/1298028/ohio-tax-talk-

rethinking-the-work-from-home-tax

Thompson, C. & Porttas, D. (2005). Relationships among organizational family support, job

autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology 10(4) 100-118.

Thompson, S. (1981), Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple question.

Psychological Bulletin, 90 (1) 89-101.

Thompson, S. & Schlehofer, M. (2008). Perceived control.

https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/perceived_control.pdf

Thornthwaite, L., Macmillan, C., & Barnes, A. (2020). "The internet, the web and social media:

the promise and practice of e-voice". In Handbook of Research on Employee Voice.

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788971188.00038

Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
 57

Troy, T. (2021). Municipalities win right to keep 2020 taxes, appeal likely. The Toledo Blade,

December 17, 2021Municipalities win right to keep 2020 taxes, appeal likely | The Blade

(toledoblade.com)

Um-e-Rubbab, & Naqvi, S. (2020). Employee voice behavior as a critical factor for

organizational sustainability in the telecommunications industry. PLoS ONE, 15(9).

https://doi-org.ezproxy.bgsu.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0238451

United States Census Bureau, (2020) QuickFacts, Toledo City, Ohio

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/dashboard/toledocityohio/PST045221

Vander Elst, T., Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2014). On the reciprocal

relationship between job insecurity and employee well-being: Mediation by perceived

control? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 671–693.

https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12068

Van Dyne, L. &LePine, J. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct

and predictive validity. The Academy of Management Journal 41 (1) 108-119.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee

voice as multidimensional constructs*. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384

Vogel, T., & Wanke, M. (2016). Attitudes and Attitude Change (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315754185

Wallston, K., Wallston, B., Smith, S., & Dobbins, C. (1987). Perceived control and health.

Current Psychology, 6(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686633

 58

Whiting, S., Maynes, T., Podsakoff, N., & Podsakoff, P. (2012). Effects of message, source, and

context on evaluations of employee voice behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1),

159–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024871

Xue, X., Song, H., & Tang, J. (2015). The relationship between political skill and employee

voice behavior from an impression management perspective. Journal of Applied Business

Research (JABR), 31(5), 1877-1888. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v31i5.9400

Yan, Z. (2018). How to promote employee voice behavior: Analysis based on leadership style

perspective. Economics and Management, 10(1), 1814-1823.

Yan, A., & Xiao, Y. (2016). Servant leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level

investigation in China. Springer Plus, 5(1), 1595. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-

3264-4

Yang, G., Ji, Y. & Xu, Q. (2021). Does Zhongyang thinking affect voice behavior? The

mediating role of psychological safety. Social Behavior and Personality: An International

Journal, 49(8), 1-8.

Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S. et al. The effects of remote work on collaboration among

information workers. Nature Human Behavior 6, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-

021-01196-4

Zhu, H., Khan, M., Nazeer, S., Li, L., Fu, Q., Badulescu, D., & Badulescu, A. (2022). Employee

voice: A mechanism to harness employees’ potential for sustainable success. International

Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), 921.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020921

Zohar, D., & Hofmann, D. A. (2012). Organizational culture and climate. Oxford University

Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0020
 59

APPENDIX A. INSTRUMENT

Survey Questions

Have you worked from home at any time in the last two years ______Yes ______No

Perceived Control
Please respond to the statements below as if you were working from a remote location (i.e.,
from your home/away from the office).
1. I have opportunities to describe my point of view of the job before any decision is made
about how to handle it. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly
disagree
2. I have a chance to express my feelings at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither
(2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
3. Other colleagues listen to me when I express my point of view at work. (5) strongly agree
(4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
4. I have influence over decisions at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2)
disagree (1) strongly disagree
5. I have freedom to decide how I perform my job at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3)
neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
6. I have an opportunity to decide how I perform my job at work. (5) strongly agree (4)
agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
7. I am informed of all relevant information at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither
(2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
8. My supervisor quickly responded to my needs at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3)
neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
9. I am kept updated with the most recent progress of the relevant information at work. (5)
strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
10. My supervisor gives me a reasonable explanation as to how the job can be performed. (5)
strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree

Please respond to the statements below as if you were working from your office at the
Department of Public Utilities.
1. I have opportunities to describe my point of view of the job before any decision is made
about how to handle it. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly
disagree
2. I have a chance to express my feelings at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither
(2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
3. Other colleagues listen to me when I express my point of view at work. (5) strongly agree
(4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
4. I have influence over decisions at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2)
disagree (1) strongly disagree
5. I have freedom to decide how I perform my job at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3)
neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
6. I have an opportunity to decide how I perform my job at work. (5) strongly agree (4)
agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
 59

7. I am informed of all relevant information at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither
(2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
8. My supervisor quickly responded to my needs at work. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3)
neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
9. I am kept updated with the most recent progress of the relevant information at work. (5)
strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
10. My supervisor gives me a reasonable explanation as to how the job can be performed. (5)
strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree

Employee Voice Behavior

Please respond to the statements below as if you were working from a remote location (i.e.,
from your home/away from the office).
1. I developed and made recommendations to my supervisor concerning issues that affect
the section/unit. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
2. My supervisor encouraged me and others to speak up and get involved in issues that
affect the section/unit (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly
disagree
3. I communicated my opinions about work issues to others in the section/unit even if my
opinion is different and others disagreed with. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2)
disagree (1) strongly disagree
4. My supervisor kept me well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to
the section/unit. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
5. I got involved in issues in issues that affected the quality of work life. (5) strongly agree
(4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
6. I spoke up in meetings with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures. (5) strongly
agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree

Please respond to the statements below as if you were working from your office at the
Department of Public Utilities.
1. I develop and make recommendations to my supervisor concerning issues that affect this
section/unit. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
2. My supervisor encourages me and others to speak up and get involved in issues that
affect the section/unit. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly
disagree
3. I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in the section/unit even if my
opinion is different and others disagree with me. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither
(2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
4. My supervisor keeps me well informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to
the section/unit. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
5. I get involved in issues in issues that affect the quality of work life here in this
section/unit. (5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
6. I speak up in the department with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures. (5)
strongly agree (4) agree (3) neither (2) disagree (1) strongly disagree
 59

Please identify the level of importance of each of the following methods of communication while
communicating with your supervisor when working from a remote location (i.e., from your
home/away from the office).
Zoom staff/team meetings: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important (2)
somewhat important (1) not important
Personal Zoom Account Meetings: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important
(2) somewhat important (1) not important
Emails: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important (2) somewhat important (1)
not important
Phone calls/Texts: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important (2) somewhat
important (1) not important
Personal Social Media Pages (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter): (5) extremely important (4)
very important (3) important (2) somewhat important (1) not important
One to one zoom supervisor meetings: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3)
important (2) somewhat important (1) not important
Other (please state): (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important (2) somewhat
important (1) not important Please Identify:______________________________________

Please identify the level of importance of each of the following methods of communication while
communicating with your supervisor when working from your office/Cubicle at the
Department of Public Utilities.
Zoom staff/team meetings: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important (2)
somewhat important (1) not important
Personal Zoom Account Meetings: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important
(2) somewhat important (1) not important
Emails: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important (2) somewhat important (1)
not important
Phone calls: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important (2) somewhat
important (1) not important
Personal Social Media Pages (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter): (5) extremely important (4)
very important (3) important (2) somewhat important (1) not important
One to one zoom supervisor meetings: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3)
important (2) somewhat important (1) not important
Chance/Impromptu Meetings in the hall): (5) extremely important (4) very important (3)
important (2) somewhat important (1) not important
Other (please state): (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important (2) somewhat
important (1) not important Please Identify:______________________________________

Please identify the level of satisfaction with each of the following methods of communication
while communicating with your supervisor when working from a remote location (i.e., from
your home/away from the office).
Zoom staff/team meetings: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1)
very satisfied
 59

Personal Zoom Account Meetings: (5) extremely important (4) very important (3) important
(2) somewhat important (1) not important

Emails: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1) very satisfied
Phone calls/Texts: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1) very
satisfied
Personal Social Media Pages: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1)
very satisfied
One to one zoom supervisor meetings: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2)
satisfied (1) very satisfied
Other (please state): (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1) very
satisfied

Please identify the level of satisfaction with each of the following methods of communication
while communicating with your supervisor when working from your office at the Department
of Public Utilities.
Zoom staff/team meetings: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1)
very satisfied
Emails: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1) very satisfied
Phone calls: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1) very satisfied
Personal Social Media Pages: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1)
very satisfied
One to one zoom supervisor meetings: (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2)
satisfied (1) very satisfied
Chance/Impromptu Meetings in the hall): (5) extremely important (4) very important (3)
important (2) somewhat important (1) not important

Other (please state): (5) very unsatisfied (4) unsatisfied (3) neutral (2) satisfied (1) very
satisfied Please Identify:______________________________________

Demographic Questions

Gender: ___male ___female ___other ___prefer not to answer

Race/ethnicity: ___White ___Black/African American ___Hispanic/Latino

___Two or More Races ___Other

Age: ____21 – 29 ___30-39 ___40 – 49 ___50 – 59 ___60 – 69 ___70 and over

Education level: ___ High School/GED ____Trades School ____Apprenticeship Program

____Associates Degree ____Bachelor’s degree ____Master’s Degree or higher

Tenure: ____ 1-less than 5yrs ____ 5-less than10yrs ____ 10-less than 15yrs ____ 15-less than
20yrs ____ 20-less than 25yrs ____ 25-less than 30yrs ____ 30 yrs or more

Collective Bargaining Unit: ____Exempt ____ Local 2058 ____ Local 7

 APPENDIX B. CONSENT LETTER
63

Schmidthorst College of Business

Doctorate in Organization Development & Change

INFORMED CONSENT FOR Employee voice behavior and perceived control: Does remote work
environment matter?
You are invited to participate in a study that is looking into how expressing your voice and your
perceived control as an employee might differ in a remote work environment compared to working
in the office. Participation in this survey is voluntary. The survey will take less than 10 minutes to
complete and does not pose any foreseeable risk. There are no right or wrong answers to the
questions. All responses will be anonymous and only be reported in an aggregate manner.
My name is Kelly O’Brien, and I am a Doctoral Candidate at Bowling Green State University and
Employee Development Manager at the City of Toledo, Ohio.
Your participation in this scientific study could help managers better understand the needs of
employees in the “new normal” remote work environment.
Your participation is completely voluntary. Your responses will be anonymous and stored on a
password-protected computer. Only the researcher and the dissertation committee members will
have access to your data. Your identity will be anonymous. The risk of participation is no greater
than that experienced in daily life. Some employers may use tracking software so you may want to
complete the survey on a personal device. Because the survey is on-line clear your internet browser
and page history. Clicking on the “continue” button below indicates you have consented to
participate.

If you have any questions about the research or your participation in the research, you can contact
me at kiobrie@bgsu.edu or kelly.o’brien@toledo.oh.gov or 419-245-1009. You may also contact the
Chair of the Bowling Green State University Institutional Review Board, at 419-372-7716 or
orc@bgsu.edu, if you have questions about your rights as participants.
Thank you for your time,
Kelly O’Brien, MBA, DODC Candidate
Bowling Green State University
Manager, Department of Public Utilities
City of Toledo, Department of Public Utilities

Customer’s Choice Customer’s Choice Customer’s Choice

Customer’s Choice Customer’s Choice Customer’s Choice